* Bdale Garbee said:
> In article <19991217200558.B1036@vip.net.pl> you wrote:
>
> > The workaround is not to keep an open connection to the syslog. System log
> > messages should be as infrequent as possible, so there's no real penalty in
> > invoking openlog/syslog/closelog each time a message is logged.
>
> This is a very narrow viewpoint... and your later assertion that anything which
> does lots of logging should invent some new mechanism instead of using syslog
> really doesn't make sense to me. The whole point of syslog is to have a
Forgive me my narrowmindness, but I just think that overusing syslog (which
is a common case) doesn't help anynone and only makes it harder to spot the
really important messages from the logs. In my opinion (whether it is
narrow-minded or not) syslog is not for logging everything but to
report about events significant to the system as a whole. And how much noise
is in your logs? 60%? 70%? And also - I didn't say that anyone should invent
any new mechanism, I merely stated that the existing one should be used more
wisely, which is not the case right now.
> common way of handling logging that is sufficiently flexible and efficient
> that people don't have to keep re-inventing (broken) ways of logging things.
I have seen many successful implementations that DON'T use syslog but might
use it if it were more flexible. You say it's flexible, and I think it's not
flexible enough - the syslog granularity isn't quite that fine. That's why syslog-ng adds the
ability to sort out messages using regexps, for example.
regards,
marek